Shafted again?

[Roger Camp]

Paul if you think you have been shafted, well up till 5 years ago Germany didnt recognise the Gyrocopter as a flying object at all and there was no exception and no Gyros flying in Germany upto then. My Benson B8M was grounded all those years (Ahemm) because of this. Now the onslaught of 2 seaters has opened the skies and i regularly see 2 or maybe 3 of them flying overhead or around on a weekend. So i do think your post was a bit harsh. Ok i dont fly much in the UK and as such am not in the UK fraternity and i am known for not molly coddling around when it comes to regulators. I do know that the LAA (PFA) has or had a subsantial number of Gyros on its books and if the BRA cannot or will not set the precedence then this is unfortunately something you will have to accept.

[Bill McCarthy]

Just for the record, Germany had submarine towed autogyros - used as elevated observation platforms during WW2.

[Roger Camp]

Bill i know this, Mr Flettner used them and despite this being extremly well documented the LBA didnt want to know till the EU got in on the mix. All of a sudden things changed and they knew all about them. The mind boggles. Not.

[John Brady]

Dear all,

Can I wade in on the issue of congested area overflight as I had the lead for the LAA throughout and if there is a problem it is down to me and nobody else. If there are double standards I own both of them.

I can well recall the meeting with the CAA heads of departments at which I made our pitch on the logic we proposed to deploy to demonstrate that if you stood in your garden for a very long time you were no more likely to be struck by an aircraft on a permit than you were by an aircraft on a CofA. That was not a meeting of buddies. Our side were sat outside the room whilst the CAA had a private meeting and then we were called in to pitch. Several times we were invited to leave the room again whilst the CAA went into closed session.

At that meeting I went through the safety data research and analysis we proposed to do to support a decision and the CAA helpfully set out what they would need to lay before their Board and therefore what we would need to prove. The CAA eventually agreed that we would go forward on the basis I described and we would do the analysis and draft a paper that they wanted to see before any formal submission. But they said they would not consider microlights, rotorcraft of any type or CAP 632 former military aircraft.

Subsequently the BMAA who were at that meeting came up with some really robust safety data on microlights demonstrating that on an equivalent basis they were no more of a risk to third parties and property than other light aircraft. This was achieved by breaking out and discounting accidents during the period when microlights were unregulated. The BMAA showed a year on year safety improvement which was on the point of overtaking that for CofA aircraft. So we ran that and the CAA accepted it for inclusion. But they would not accept rotorcraft of CAP632 aircraft.

It is my view that when working with governments and authorities one has to be pragmatic, taking what you can and developing a relationship that shows you are people they can understand and work with. So we went without rotorcraft. After several iterations our submission was used as the basis for a CAA board decision which we got. However, I was subsequently approached by an official of the BRA to pursue gyrocopters and I started on a plan to bring them in with a second paper. He and I agreed that we would need robust safety data so we discussed the tactics we needed to employ and the scope of the data needed. I put my drafting to one side pending the arrival of gyrocopter safety data. I am still waiting for data.

So I refute the suggestion that the LAA and BMAA decided to marginalise the rotorcraft communities. I believe we would have been stupid to walk away from the opportunity to achieve this change. If we were given the safety data sufficient to support another submission I would go back and do it again.

John Brady

[Jeremy Liber]

John

We all know how much time, effort, good sense and expertise you bring to the LAA cause and, without blowing too much sunshine, we wouldn't be where we are today without your personal efforts.

The case you've presented here is factual, logical and shows a very sensible approach to the issue; and you got significant results.

However, you haven't factored in the warped logic of some of these people, i.e. it is always somebody else's fault and there is a conspiracy against them, the monstrous accident rate is a mere fiction that deserves a damned good ignoring.

If you could, perhaps, go away and work on that basis...

Regards

Jeremy

[Trevor Harvey]

Once again Jeremy, you demonstrate that which you condemn. Warped logic indeed.

[Rob Swain]

The CAA safety evening figures did support the view that Gyros are much more likely to be involved in a flying accident than any other powered aircraft, based on the number of hours flown - not sure if it was 10 times the risk though, but it was many times it. I've never seen other figures to explain why.

It is a pity that that statement didn't read "Gyros WERE much more likely"
I sincerely hope the recent advances make a difference, & are recognised.

Trevor,
So you admit gyros had a terrible record and that things needed to change.

You say they have changed. It appears that this has happenned, but for major part in the wake of the Cranfield and CAA investigations and groundings rather than any voluntary advances on the gyro community's part!

All this is good. The safety stats should improve if all goes well.

However, you can't expect to get changes based on the fact that you hope or even expect them to improve. The record improvements have to actually happen and that takes time - quite a lot if the CAA's normal approach is followed.

Given the low number of gyros, and the consequent low number of gyro hours flown a year you are going to have to accept that this is going to take a long time.

[Trevor Harvey]

Rob.
I fully agree with all you say. It will take time, whatever the reasons for the change.
I have very little interest in gyro's myself, I just know a couple of perpetrators.
However. If the accident record of days gone by are included in current estimates of statistics it is going to take a long long time before those past records are diluted by a perfect record from this day forth. I also agree that it is up to the gyro world to present their case.
And I say again, I wish I had kept my mouth shut. Just trying to help!!!